Lovely
Williams Bey (“Plaintiff”) brought this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the
final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”). Commissioner
denied Plaintiff's claim for a period of Supplemental
Security Income Benefits (“SSI”) under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Plaintiff's Motion”) (ECF No. 15) and
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Commissioner's Motion”) (ECF No. 16). The
Court has reviewed the motions, related memoranda, and the
applicable law. No hearing is deemed necessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented below,
the Court hereby REVERSES and
REMANDS the matter for further
clarification.

I.
Procedural Background

On
January 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed for SSI under Title XVI,
alleging disability beginning March 23, 2010. R. 33.
Plaintiff later amended her complaint, alleging disability
beginning on January 21, 2015. Id. Plaintiff alleged
disability due to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and back
problems. R. 213. An administrative hearing was held on May
19, 2016, R. 52-88, and on June 2, 2016, the claim was
denied. R. 45. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals
Council, which concluded on July 6, 2017 that there was no
basis for granting the Request for Review. R. 8.

II.
Standard of Review

On
appeal, the Court has the power to affirm, modify, or reverse
the decision of the ALJ “with or without remanding the
cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2015).
The Court must affirm the ALJ's decision if it is
supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ applied the
correct law. Id. (“The findings of the
Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported
by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”);
see also Russell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 440
Fed.Appx. 163, 164 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990)).
“In other words, if the ALJ has done his or her job
correctly and supported the decision reached with substantial
evidence, this Court cannot overturn the decision, even if it
would have reached a contrary result on the same
evidence.” Schoofield v. Barnhart, 220
F.Supp.2d 512, 515 (D. Md. 2002). Substantial evidence is
“more than a mere scintilla.” Russell,
440 F. App'x, at 164. “It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (citing
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971));
see also Hays, 907 F.2d, at 1456 (quoting Laws
v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966))
(internal quotation marks omitted) (“It consists of
more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat
less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a
refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then
there is substantial evidence.”).

The
Court does not review the evidence presented below de
novo, nor does the Court “determine the weight of
the evidence” or “substitute its judgment for
that of the Secretary if his decision is supported by
substantial evidence.” Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456
(citations omitted); see also Blalock v. Richardson,
483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972) (“[T]he language of
§ 205(g) precludes a de novo judicial
proceeding and requires that the court uphold the
Secretary's decision even should the court disagree with
such decision as long as it is supported by
‘substantial evidence.'”). The ALJ, not the
Court, has the responsibility to make findings of fact and
resolve evidentiary conflicts. Hays, 907 F.2d, at
1456 (citations omitted). If the ALJ's factual finding,
however, “was reached by means of an improper standard
or misapplication of the law, ” then that finding is
not binding on the Court. Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d
514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

The
Court shall find a person legally disabled under Title XVI if
she is unable “to do any substantial gainful activity
by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which
has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.905(a) (2012). The Code of Federal Regulations outlines a
five-step process that the Commissioner must follow to
determine if a claimant meets this definition:

1) Determine whether the plaintiff is “doing
substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)(i) (2012). If she is doing such activity, she
is not disabled. If she is not doing such activity, proceed
to step two.

2) Determine whether the plaintiff has a “severe
medically determinable physical or mental impairment that
meets the duration requirement in § [416.909], or a
combination of impairments that is severe and meets the
duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)(ii) (2012). If she does not have such
impairment or combination of impairments, she is not
disabled. If she does meet these requirements, proceed to
step three.

3) Determine whether the plaintiff has an impairment that
“meets or equals one of [the C.F.R.'s] listings in
appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration
requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii)
(2012). If she does have such impairment, she is disabled. If
she does not, proceed to step four.

4) Determine whether the plaintiff retains the
“residual functional capacity”
(“RFC”) to perform “past relevant
work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) (2012). If
she can perform such work, she is not disabled. If she
cannot, proceed to step five.

5) Determine whether the plaintiff can perform other work,
considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) (2012). If she can perform
other work, she is not disabled. If she cannot, she is
disabled.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff
has the burden to prove that she is disabled at steps one
through four, and Commissioner has the burden to prove that
Plaintiff is not disabled at step five. Hu ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.